Note: At the time this article was published, all external links were alive and functioning. But the Internet is a dynamic forum. Webmasters sometimes change or remove pages, and entire web sites sometimes disappear. Whenever practicable, we have cached copies of the originals.

March 10, 2002 -- Eureka! One of my readers, who calls himself "Snake Plissken," has put it
together. He tells us why the passenger lists of the four September 11 "suicide" jets were so
small, how remote control was used, why the transponders were turned off, why the radar tracks of
the four planes were confused, why there was no Boeing 757 debris at the Pentagon.

By George, I think he's got it!

My e-mail exchanges with Snake took place over a series of days. With Snake's agreement, I
have consolidated the exchanges, inserted some reference URLs, and made minor edits. My
comments and additions will be bracketed thus [ ]. As you read what Snake has to say, keep the
following in mind:

Magic is the pretended performance of those things which
cannot be done. The success of a magician's simulation of
doing the impossible depends upon misleading the minds of his audiences.
This, in the main, is done by adding, to a performance, details
of which the spectators are unaware, and leaving out others which
they believe you have not left out. In short a performance
of magic is largely a demonstration of the universal reliability
of certain facts of psychology.
(John Mulholland, The Art of Illusion, Charles Scribner
& Sons, 1944.)

In what follows, Snake unravels the illusions of the 9-11 magicians.

Carol,

You did some fine research on 9-11. You came within inches
of solving the puzzle of the "suicide" jets. But now you need the
rest of the story. Let me explain by making a suggestion.

Go visit a bumblebee hive some time, and try to keep your eye on
just one bee. You can't do it. You get confused.
Think of the 9-11 jets as bumblebees. Matter of fact, you
could even call Operation 911 Flight of the Bumble Planes.

I've worked in cryptology and there are many ways of hiding the
truth. Substitute information, omit information, scramble the
information out of sequence, and add nonsense (random garbage).
All four methods were used on the 9-11 incident. Let me lay
out the clues and show you where they lead.

THE CLUE

First Clue -- Few Passengers On The Four Flights:
Many have remarked about the short passenger lists on the four 911
jets. You might get a low turnout for a 767 or 757 now and
then, but four coast to-coast flights taking off from the East inside
of a few minutes of each other, all with short passenger lists?
Nuts. That's your first clue.

Second Clue -- First Report of First WTC Crash: The
second clue comes from the first New York eyewitness on NBC. She
had no question about what she saw. You could hear it in her
voice. If she was the state's witness, the defense team would
have their heads between their knees before she stopped talking.

What did she say? She heard an airplane coming in low and looked
up. She saw a small private jet, and watched it fly into the
first WTC tower, the North tower. She was certain in her description
-- most people know the difference between a big round-nose commercial
jet and a smaller plane.

Later, some dodgy report came in from an anonymous source in the "United Airlines
Command Center" that American Airlines had a hijacking, and they gradually padded the story out
until the viewer felt like he was part of an unfolding revelation on the size and make of the
plane. So the first eyewitness's story got shellacked.

Third clue -- Pentagon Crash: The first report on NBC said there had been
an explosion near the Pentagon heliport. No mention of a plane.

If you were watching ABC, the first reports cited eyewitnesses who said a business jet
had crashed into the Pentagon. Notice that this description is similar to the first report
about the WTC. A small plane, not a big, round-nosed passenger jet.

Then ABC interviewed some media executive who said he "saw the whole thing" from his
car on the freeway. It was an American Airlines passenger jet. Good luck the road
didn't need his attention while he was gawking. And of course it was a big passenger
jet scraping the light poles with it's belly as it came in low.
And that story paved the way for the official truth.

Fourth Clue -- No Boeing 757 Debris at Pentagon Crash Site: By now lots
of people have realized there is something very wrong with the story of Flight 77's crash into the
Pentagon. What's the problem? The wingspan of a 757 is about 125 feet, with about
35 feet between the two jet engines.

After the smoke died down, everyone could see the Pentagon but
no one could see the plane. The Pentagon is made of masonry
-- limestone -- not steel and glass. The aluminum wings of the
plane should have been ripped off and left outside the building.
We should have seen wing wreckage. But there was none.

[CV comments:
I have studied TV footage taken contemporaneously by various
networks and reviewed photos from news magazines published just
after 9-11. After the smoke died down, no Boeing 757 debris
was visible.

See the following URLs at the website of the U.S. Army Military
District of Washington, D.C., sent to me by researcher John DiNardo,
<jadinardo@hotmail.com>. By the way, Mr. DiNardo suspects
that inside explosives were used at the Pentagon on 9-11.
Certainly the damaged section of the building had just been renovated;
explosives would have been easy to install.

This photograph below, with caption, appeared on the US Army Military
District of Washington site. It unwittingly demonstrates
that there was no Boeing 757 wreckage. Think now: a hundred
thousand pounds of seats, framework, skin plates, engine parts,
flaps, wheels, luggage, interior panels, electronics, and this
little out-of-context scrap of God-knows-what was shown by the
Pentagon.

In the last several months, largely as a result of Mr. DiNardo's
work, there has been growing Internet discussion of the lack of
Boeing 757 debris outside the Pentagon. Now, magically, new
photos of "Boeing 757" Pentagon wreckage are beginning to appear.
Check out the websites of Mike Rivero <whatreallyhappened.com>
and Joe Vialls for copies of these fakes. Rivero and Vialls,
by endorsing them as real, have surely identified themselves as
members of the fake opposition.

OK. Now back to Snake Plissken]

Fifth Clue -- Quality of Pilots in Pentagon crash:
As you point out in Operation 911: No Suicide Pilots
[http://www.Public-action.com/911/robotplane.html],
the flying instructors who trained the "suicide" pilots of Flight
77 said they were hopeless. "It was like they had hardly even
ever driven a car ..." The flight instructors called the two,
"dumb and dumber," and told them to quit taking lessons.

Yet the Washington Post described the maneuvers of Flight
77 before it hit the Pentagon. The huge jet took a 270 degree
hairpin turn to make its target. The Post said Flight
77 had to be flown by expert pilots.

Something is wrong here. Now "dumb and dumber" are expert
pilots. That is your fifth clue.

Sixth Clue -- Transponders Turned Off: As you point
out, the "hijackers" turned off the transponders which transmit
information showing the airline names, flight numbers, and altitude.
But the FAA also uses conventional radar, so the "hijackers" must
have known the planes were still visible. Why would the "hijackers"
shut the transponders off, you asked? You are looking at your
sixth clue.

Seventh Clue -- Confusion On Radar Tracks: As
you point out, some of these flights disappeared from the conventional
radar scopes. [See above-cited URL.] That's your
seventh clue.

Eighth Clue -- Second WTC Tower Barely Hit:
Have a look at the footage of the second WTC tower being hit.
The plane almost missed the tower and just managed to hit the corner.
Yet the first plane struck its target dead center. That's
your eighth clue.

HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED

* A Boeing 767 was secured
and painted up to look like a United Airlines jet. It had
remote controls installed in it, courtesy of some NORAD types.
Call that plane "Pseudo Flight 175" and leave it parked at a military
airfield for the moment.

* The number of the passengers
on each flight was kept artificially low that day. Easy to
do. Just monkey with the airline computers and show the fights
full so no more tickets are sold. Include some of your own
operatives in each flight, maybe.

* After the planes are in the air,
the transponders must be shut down. There are a few ways to
do this, maybe, but the simplest is this: Have one of the NORAD
insiders call the pilots and say: "This is the North American Aerospace
Defense Command. There is a national emergency. We are
under terrorist attack. Turn off your transponders.
Maintain radio silence. Here is your new flight plan.
You will land at [name] military air base."

* The pilots turn off the
transponders. The FAA weenies lose the information which identifies
the airline, the flight number, and the altitude of the planes.
Of course the planes can still be seen on conventional radar, but
the planes are just nameless blips now.

* What did the radar show of
the planes' flight paths? We'll never see the real records,
for sure. But in the spy movies, when the spy wants to lose
a tail, he gets a double to lead the tail one way while the spy goes
the other. If I were designing Operation 911, I'd do that:
As each of the original jets is flying, another jet is sent to fly
just above or below it, at the same latitude and longitude.
The blips of the two planes merge on the radar scopes. Alternately,
a plane is sent to cross the flight path of the original plane.
Again, the blips merge, just like the little bees you're watching
outside the hive. The original planes proceed to the military
airfield and air traffic control is thoroughly confused, watching
the wrong blips ...

That's probably close to the way it was managed. Like I say,
we'll never see the radar records so we won't know exactly.

* A small remote controlled
commuter jet filled with incendiaries/explosives -- a cruise missile,
if you like -- is flown into the first WTC tower. That's the
plane the first NBC eyewitness saw.

* The remote controlled "Pseudo
Flight 175," decked out to look like a United airlines passenger
jet, is sent aloft and flown by remote control -- without
passengers -- and crashed into the second tower.

Beautiful! Everyone has pictures of that.

Why did Pseudo Flight 175 almost miss the second tower? Because
the remote operators were used to smaller, more maneuverable craft,
not a big stubborn passenger jet. The operators brought the
jet in on a tight circle and almost blew it because those jets do
hairpin turns like the Queen Mary. They brought it in too fast
and too close to do the job right and just hit the corner of the tower.

* Then another remote controlled
commuter jet filled with incendiaries/explosives -- a cruise missile
if you like -- hits the Pentagon, in the name of Flight 77.

* Eyewitnesses are a dime a
dozen. Trusted media whores "witness" the Pentagon hit and
claim it was an American Airlines Boeing 757, Flight 77. Reporters
lie better than lawyers.

* Meanwhile, the passengers
from Flights 11, 175, and 77, now at the military airfield, are
loaded onto Flight 93. If you've put some of your own agents
aboard, they stay on the ground, of course.

* Flight is taken aloft.

* Flight 93 is shot down or
bombed -- makes no difference which. Main deal is to destroy
that human meat without questions. Easiest way to dispose of
15,000 lbs. of human flesh, and nobody gets a headline if they find
a foot in their front garden. No mass graves will ever be discovered,
either.

* The trail is further confused
by issuing reports that Flight 77 was actually headed towards the
White House but changed course.

* The trail is further confused
by having the Washington Post wax lyrical about the flying
skills of non-existent pilots on a non-existence plane (Flight 77).

* The trail is further confused
with conflicting reports and artificial catfight issues, such as
-- did The Presidential Shrub really see the first tower hit on
TV while he was waiting to read the story about the pet goat ...

So we know the Boeing that used to be Flight 93 was blown up.
The other three original Boeings (Flights 11, 175, 77) still exist
somewhere, unless they were cut up for scrap.

The passengers and crews of Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93 died in
an airplane crash, just like the newspapers said. Only for most
of them, it was the wrong crash. But that's as close to the
truth as the news media likes to get anyway, so it works.

WHY DO IT THAT WAY?

So there you have it. Not four planes. More than four
planes. There were the four original Boeing passenger jets
that took off from the East Coast airports, the remote controlled
Pseudo Flight 175 Boeing, and two small remote controlled jets or
cruise missiles. Figure in a couple of extra planes to confuse
the flight paths of the original passenger jets.

The four original Boeings had conventional controls. The look-alike
Boeing and the two small jets were drones, rigged with remote
control. You called it Global Hawk, and that's good enough.
The mimic planes could have been piloted or remote controlled.

Why not just install remote control in four passenger jets like
you described in NO SUICIDE PILOTS? Here's why:
You might get remote control gear installed on a passenger jet so
pretty the pilot would not notice, but that would be more work, more
time, and more people. Then you would have to control your special
plane through maintenance dispatch and try to get it lined up for
that day, that time, that flight. Then you would have to multiply
those efforts by four. There would be too many chances of
things going wrong. Plane substitution would be much
simpler. You'd just need the NORAD insiders, the personnel
at the military airfield, and maybe an agent or two inside the FAA
air traffic control system to make sure things go smooth. That
should not be too difficult because NORAD has sent lots of its people
over to the FAA to work on the FAA radars.

Some people have suggested the original passenger planes were
used with the flight computers hacked and loaded with the collision
coordinates for the targets. Maybe the job could have been done
that way, but it was not. You know for sure it was not because
flight computers do not fly planes the way those were flown.
A flight computer is given a set of GPS points (geographic coordinates)
to follow, and the computer charts the path between them, correcting
for cross-winds and other errors. The flight computer flies
smooth and gentle, the way passengers like it, without jerky corrections.

You know Flight 175 was not on that system when it hit the south
tower because it came in fast (they say) in a tight hooking circle
that almost missed the tower. An autopilot wouldn't make that
mistake. The crash of flight 175 was not a preprgrammed flight
computer finding the optimum path. What you see there in the
path of 175 is a real-time controller fighting the physics of flight
- and almost losing it.

You've already dealt with the Joe Vialls Home Run explanation, so
I don't have to analyze that again.

I've seen another lame attempt to explain away what happened: Supposedly AWACS
(airborne military communications) hit the planes with EMF (radio blast) and knocked out their
manual electronics, then took over the 9-11 planes by remote and made them crash. That's a
pipe dream. Anything that knocked out the electronics from a distance would turn a plane into
a flying scrap heap. Those plane are completely dependent on electronics, and no remote beam
could pick and choose which circuits to destroy and which to leave intact.

OTHER DETAILS

* Pentagon Security Photos: On March 7 CNN released four photographs taken by Pentagon
security camera on September 11, 2001. Look at the photos:

The Washington Post says: "The first photo shows a small,
blurry, white object near the upper right corner -- possibly the
plane just a few feet about the ground," but admits "the hijacked
American Airlines plane is not clearly visible." ("New Photos Show
Attack on Pentagon," March 7, 2002. )

[Note to reader: There are other versions of this
clip on the Internet, but I have been unable to find one I can
verify as the original clip. If you can find a verifiable
copy, let me know. CV <SkyWriter@Public.Action.com>]

In that clip, the camera shows a fireman with other workers casually
discussing some street work. The fireman looks up over his
left shoulder, then behind him, as though he is following a sound.
The camera follows his gaze, finds nothing at the original location,
then quickly moves to a shot of the WTC, visible through another
corridor in the surrounding buildings.

Why does the cameraman focus on the WTC? I can only guess
he heard the impact of the plane. The camera does not show the
plane in the air prior to impact, so I assume it has already crashed.

In the first frames we see a puff of smoke from the impact site
that grows into a cloud and erupts into flame. After a few seconds,
the flame dies down and the smoke dissipates. At that moment,
the camera shows the huge S-shaped gash in the side of WTC North.

[CV's comments, January 1, 2004: Another version of
the "fireman's video" is now available at : http://www.serendipity.ptpi.net/wot/north_tower.htm
Footage from that clip shows a large plane - not a small plane - approaching
the tower and crashing into it.]

If the wings of a large jet made that gash, the gash should not
be S-shaped. The gash should be a straight line like the wings
of the jet. But more important: if the impact of the jet
made
the gash, the gash should appear at the moment of impact when the
camera is first drawn to the building. Instead, it appears AFTER the
smoke and flame.

The Hijackers: I have read reports that
some of the alleged hijackers are actually still alive. This suggests
the hijacker scenario and the resultant mid-air telephone calls
to the relatives is pure bull. But I can't verify the alleged
hijackers are still alive, so let's move on.

It would be easy for the 9-11 planners to collect the names of people
with Muslim-sounding names who were taking flying lessons around
the country. Just before 9-11 happens, they are disappeared.
Then mid-air phone calls are created, reporting hijackers
who were never aboard the planes. That would work.

As you and many people have noticed, the Muslim names don't appear
on the passenger lists of the four flights. The hijackers
names don't even appear on the list of passengers released by United
on September 12 -- the list of passengers on Flights 175 and 93.

Sure it was careless not to put the Arab names on the passenger
lists, but nobody's perfect.

Just to show you how scripted the Flight 93 hijacking thing was,
think about the alleged phone calls from the passengers on Flight
93 to their next of kin in the moments before the crash. Supposedly,
they learned of the attacks on the Pentagon and the WTC with their
handy cell phones, and they figured out their own plane was hijacked
for a similar purpose. So they decided to be heroes and take
the plane away from the hijackers.

According to the Dallas Morning News : "The fourth time Thomas
Burnett Jr. phoned his wife, Deena, he acknowledged up front: 'I
know we're going to die. There's three of us who are going
to do something about it.'"

Heroic, wasn't it? And not a dry hanky in the house.
The heroes of modern America. A high school basketball star,
a college rugby player, a forest ranger, a woman police officer ...

But why did it have to be suicide heroism? "They knew their
deaths were inevitable, according to some family members with whom
they spoke on the phone, and they didn't want thousands more to
die with them." It makes a better story, of course:
"Suicide Heroes Defeat Suicide Hijackers."

Why did they have to die? The crew was still alive and "herded
at knife point to the back of the plane, where the passengers were
being held," according to the same report. They weren't dead.
If the passengers got control from the hijackers, couldn't the crew
fly the plane? Why didn't those brave heroes say things like,
"There's a chance we might save this boat"? But they said,
"I know we're going to die."

Obviously, this script was concocted in midnight bull sessions like
they had in Dustin Hoffman's mansion in "Wag the Dog". And the
American public has been trained on weak plots for decades on prime
time TV, so they don't WANT to think their way out of a wet paper
bag. It spoils the show.

Only the writers and producers of Operation 911 knew that the
passengers of Flight 93 had to die. But the temptation was too
much, so they put it in the passenger dialog, too. And that's
how you know the cell phone calls are just theater, not fact.

By the way, if I was planning this operation, I'd put some fictitious
names on the passenger list, so when the flight went down, the media
could interview fake relatives. Like that Operation Northwoods
plan in which a fake Cuban jet would shoot down a fake American
passenger jet. Whoever planned that must have planned to use
fake grieving relatives, too.

And then of course I've heard they can do marvelous things with
voice simulation. How about that fellow who called his mother
from Flight 93 and said "Mom, this is Mark Bingham." That has all the
truth of a plaster fish trophy. That one guy, Todd Beamer,
with the pregnant wife -- she didn't talk to him directly, she just
got a message from the answering service.

Is this all too much for your to swallow? Don't you believe
people would conspire to pull all this off? Well, look at
the stakes. This current war will go on for years and blot out one
of the world's great religions, legitimize military rule in the United
States, redistribute the world's oil resources, and change the entire
power structure of planet Earth. All that's needed to make
it happen is ambition, chutzpah, "a few good men," and a nation that
is willing to be deceived.

The problem with people like you when you try to understand events
like this, you are not a trained killer. When you come to
wiping out the whoever, you shrink back. That's normal.
That is one of the things you have to train out of a soldier.

But when a soldier plans something like this, he doesn't flinch
at the killing. He just takes that into the plans like one more
or one less egg in the omelet. If he has to kill the enemy
or Americans or even himself, it doesn't matter because sometimes
he has to do that to win. He's trained that way.

The only thing that matters is the Objective. Whatever a soldier
has to do to win the Objective, that is what he has to do.
All of this false piety about suicide bombers is nuts. Well
trained Americans would do that if you ordered them to. If
they didn't, they weren't well trained.

So you have to kill a hundred, a thousand, or five thousand civilians,
you just do it in the best way that will help the Objective.

[The article was revised on September 28, 2004. Notes added as indicated.]

NORAD, charged with keeping American skies safe, didn't show up on
September 11, leaving the remote controlled jets to do their
work. Coincidentally, NORAD is one of the world's experts on
remote controlled aircraft. NORAD had the means, and provided
the opportunity, for making 9-11 happen. Discussion of radar
anomalies.

NORAD claims it sent defensive jets aloft on 9-11, but America's top generals give contradictory accounts before the Senate. They act like dumb blondes — they can scarcely remember which plane hit which target. NORAD blames the FAA for the catastrophe, but the Senate doesn't bother calling the FAA. More radar anomalies.

But what about the cell phone calls to relatives from passengers on the doomed planes? The Special Operations Command gives us the answer to that question — but it's not the same answer you heard on network news. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm

Snake Plissken tells us how remote controlled planes and radar trickery were used to pull off Operation 9-11. "Magic is the pretended performance of those things which cannot be done." By George, I think he's got it!

On 9-11, the most important mission was to extinguish the fire and rescue the victims. So why did they spray water on an aviation fuel fire? Instead of lifting the debris off the victims, why did they use a wrecking ball to collapse the ruins on top of them? Your journey begins here . . .

After the publication of "Pentagon RESCUE? Part IV: Open, Bloody Questions," the Ministry of Truth publicized a little-known article claiming foam was used on 9-11, and that the "bulk" of the fire was extinguished in seven minutes! Then what did we all watch on TV, burning for days after?

Why would vengeful Palestinians blow themselves up? Why not just leave the package, walk away, and strike again next week? Funny how the Israelis identify the bombers immediately, and distribute nice color portrait shots of the culprits immediately. Funny, the IRA didn't use suicide bombers. Other funny things.

What does the establishment of a world-wide Jewish theocracy have to do with the events of 9-11? Everything. If the Jews who rule America have their way, freedom of religion will soon be a thing of the past, and rabbinical courts will rule the world.

Mrs. Ellen Mariani, a 911 widow, has filed a RICO suit against George W. Bush et al. to discover the truth about 911. But her lawyer, Philip J. Berg, has written a complaint that protects the real culprits. It is littered with gross errors and malpractice. Berg is a suicide bus driver taking Ellen Mariani's quest for truth on a one-way trip to oblivion.